By Dr Jeffrey T. Riddle¹

‘… And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more’ (John 8.11).

In this article we will be examining one of the two most substantial textual variants in the New Testament which have come under fire with the rise of modern textual criticism.² That passage is known by the Latin phrase Pericope Adulterae (PA), or as the woman taken in adultery passage. Like Mark 16.9–20, it numbers some twelve precious verses in God’s Word. This memorable and beloved account of Christ’s ministry to the adulterous woman has been held in the highest esteem by believers across many generations, and yet some modern Bibles now cast doubt on its authenticity or even suggest it be removed from the text of Scripture altogether. Over against these trends, we maintain that the authenticity of this passage can be confidently defended and affirmed as Holy Scripture.

Introduction: What is the controversy with John 7.53–8.11?

What is the controversy concerning this beloved passage? Advocates of the modern critical Greek text would have us believe that this passage is an uninspired, spurious addition to John’s Gospel, which should not be the subject of Christian preaching or teaching. This challenge is made despite the fact that this passage is found in the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts containing chapters 7 and 8 in the Gospel according to John; it appears in some of the earliest versions (ancient translations) of the Bible, including the Latin Vulgate; and it was incorporated without question into the printed editions of the Textus Receptus in the Reformation era and, from there, into the various vulgar (vernacular) Protestant translations, including English. Thus, it has been the subject of countless edifying commentaries, sermons, and teaching lessons throughout the course of church history.

Modern scholarly attacks upon this classic passage began during the nineteenth century, primarily due to the fact that it is absent in codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the twin darlings of modern textual criticism. In Westcott and Hort’s groundbreaking edition of the Greek New Testament (1881) the PA was removed from the text of John and placed as an appendix on a separate page following the end of the Fourth Gospel, with the Scripture reference placed in double brackets as a heading. In later printings of the modern critical Greek New Testament the passage was more often allowed to remain in the text of John at its traditional location, but the entirety of it was placed in double brackets to indicate the editorial opinion that it was not original to John. Modern translations, based on these modern critical texts, soon followed suit placing their translation of the passage in brackets and adding notes such as the one that now appears in the ESV: ‘[THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT INCLUDE 7.53–8.11].’

In more recent days the challenges to this beloved passage have seemingly become even more overt and hostile. In the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL) edition of the Greek New Testament, edited by Michael W. Holmes and published in 2010, the PA was completely removed from the text proper and relegated to the apparatus at the bottom of the page.³ The Tyndale House Greek New Testament (THGNT), a project sponsored by the ‘evangelical’ Tyndale House think-tank in Cambridge and printed by the ‘evangelical’ publishing house Crossway in 2017, also removed the PA from the text proper and placed it in the footnotes.⁴ The PA has even become the object of scorn in some circles, with Daniel B. Wallace describing John 7.53–8.11 in an online article as ‘My Favorite Passage That’s Not in the Bible’.⁵ One might be tempted to quip, ‘With evangelicals like these, who needs liberals?’

It has also become standard fare for those scholars (including evangelicals) who write commentaries on the Gospel according to John to instruct the reader that the PA is a late and spurious addition. In his 2010 dissertation on the PA at Radboud University Nijmegen, John David Punch provides a summary of the conclusions reached and analyses offered by many of these commentaries:

• C. K. Barrett (1978) said it is ‘certain’ that this pericope is not part of the Gospel.
• George Beasley-Murray (1987) declared it was ‘universally accepted’ that the PA does not belong to John.
• Leon Morris (1987) suggested there was ‘no doubt’ the PA was a late insertion.
• D. A. Carson (2000) concluded that ‘the commentaries are right to relegate the passage to footnotes or appendices’.
• Craig Keener (2003) claims ‘that it bears all the marks of an interpolation’.
• Andreas Köstenberger (2004) said readers should skip directly from 7.52 to 8.12. He added, ‘proper conservatism and caution suggest that the passage be omitted from preaching to Churches’ and that the pericope not be regarded as ‘part of the Christian canon’.⁶

Many contemporary preachers trained in ‘evangelical’ or even ‘conservative’ and ‘Reformed’ seminaries, fed by such commentaries and following the counsel of their professors and mentors, either avoid preaching upon this passage altogether or, perhaps worse, attempt to explain to their congregations why it is not Scripture.⁷

In this essay we will challenge this lack of confidence in, and even outright rejection of, the traditional text of John’s Gospel that includes John 7.53–8.11. We contend that to remove this passage is neither reasonable nor justified, and attempts to do so only serve to undermine the church’s confidence in the Scriptures. In raising a defense of the PA, we will consider the following four points:

1. We will examine the external evidence.
2. We will examine the internal evidence.
3. We will take a special look at the Patristic evidence and suggest a plausible reason as to why the PA might have been missing in some early manuscripts.
4. We will respond to two ‘wrong-headed’ suggestions about the PA.

After covering these four points, we will then offer a final conclusion.

External Evidence

By external evidence we mean the extant manuscripts of the New Testament that serve as witnesses to the text. We begin with the extant Greek manuscripts. The PA appears in many ancient Greek manuscripts, including in many ancient uncial (majuscule) manuscripts. Among these are Codex Bezae (D or 05, dating from the fifth century), as well as codices E, F, G, H, K, M, U, Gamma, and Pi. It is also found in over a thousand later minuscule manuscripts, an indication of the fact that it was acknowledged as the ‘Majority’ or consensus reading of early Christianity.

With respect to ancient versions, the PA appears in many ancient translations, most notably in the sphere of Western Christianity and in many Old Latin manuscripts. The Old Latin manuscripts have capitula (chapter headings) which, in some of the oldest, summarise the PA as ubi adulteram dimissit (‘where he dismissed an adulteress’).⁸ In others of these ancient capitula, the adulteress is described as mulierum depraehensam in moechatione (‘the woman taken in adultery’). This is noteworthy, because the term moechatione is a Greek loanword, indicating that the passage was known in the earlier Greek exemplars and not merely in Latin.⁹ The PA is also present in the Latin Vulgate produced by Jerome in the late fourth century.

According to contemporary scholar Maurice A. Robinson the PA appears in at least 1,476 extant Greek mss, and it is omitted in only 267.¹⁰ Robinson also solidly affirms the authenticity of the PA, based in part on this overwhelming evidence. Majority Text advocate Wilbur N. Pickering likewise observes that the PA is omitted in only 15% of all extant Greek manuscripts.¹¹

We want to be fair and accurate in this survey, so we need to acknowledge that the PA does not appear in a minority of extant manuscripts, including some that are very early. It does not appear in P66 (Bodmer Papyrus II) or in P75 (Bodmer Papyrus XIV and XV). P75 is noteworthy for its frequent agreement with the readings found in Vaticanus. Some scholars, including John David Punch, believe markings in both of these papyri indicate scribal awareness of the PA, even though it is absent.¹² The PA is also not found in Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph or 01) or in Codex Vaticanus (B or 03). As with the papyri, Punch suggests that scribal markings in Vaticanus indicate ‘possible scribal awareness of the PA’.¹³

There is more we might add here. Two of the earliest uncial manuscripts, Codex Alexandrinus (A or 02) and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C or 04) are both damaged or defective at this point in the text of John,¹⁴ and although scholars sometimes speculate based on space measurements that the PA was not originally in these manuscripts, this must remain an unproven conjecture. This means that among five of the uncials that are considered most ancient by modern scholars, one includes the PA (Bezae), two exclude it (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), and two are inconclusive (Alexandrinus and Ephraemi Rescriptus). There are other early uncials that omit the PA, but some of these also demonstrate strange patterns at the point of omission. Codex L, for example, has a vacant space following John 7.52 up until 8.12. This might indicate the copyist’s awareness of the PA’s omission. Codex Delta omits the PA, but the beginning of 8.12 is ‘followed by sixteen blank lines.’¹⁵

What conclusions can we draw about the external evidence? First, the PA is the reading found in the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts and in the ancient versions. Even the earliest Greek manuscripts which omit the PA actually provide evidence that the scribes who copied them knew of its existence and demonstrate awareness that it was being suppressed at this point in the text. We can compare this phenomenon with what is similarly observed with the omission of the text of the long ending of Mark in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Second, we can therefore conclude that there clearly was very early controversy regarding the PA in some circles.

Internal Evidence

The question here is whether or not the PA properly fits within the literary context of the Gospel according to John. We will approach this from two perspectives. First, does the PA fit within the narrative framework of John? Second, does the PA fit with the language, vocabulary, and style of John?

First: Does the PA fit within the narrative framework of John?

The narrative setting for John chapters 7–8 is Christ’s visit to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles (see 7.1–2). His brothers encourage Him to go up to the feast, but Christ initially declines their invitation, declaring that His time has not yet come; so He remains in Galilee (7.3–9). Then, after His brothers depart, He goes up ‘not openly, but as it were in secret’ (7.10). We are then told how in ‘the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught’ (7.14). One of the themes that He teaches upon is Moses and the law (see 7.19, 22–23), as well as the exercise of proper judgment (7.24 ‘Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment’). In 7.37 we are told about how on the ‘last day, that great day of the feast’ Jesus stood and cried, ‘If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink’. Controversy then erupts among the people as to whether the Lord Jesus is ‘the Prophet’ (v.40) or ‘the Christ’ (vv. 41–42). A report is brought to the Pharisees (v. 45), and Nicodemus warns them about making an improper judgment (v. 51).

If we accept the PA as original and authentic, we would then have the report of everyone returning to their homes (7.53) and Jesus going to the Mount of Olives at the end of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles (8.1). Very early on the following morning, Jesus would go to the temple to teach (v. 2). This is when the scribes and Pharisees would bring the adulteress to Jesus (v. 3), and after reminding Him that the law of Moses commanded stoning of adulterers, they would ask Him what He has to say about this matter (v. 5).

Assuming the PA as authentic, Christ’s ‘I am the light of the world’ statement (8.12), one of the seven Johannine ‘I am’ statements (cf. John 6.35; 10.9, 11; 11.25, 14.6; 15.1), would then come on the day after the Feast of Tabernacles had ended, and it would fittingly be uttered early in the morning (8.2, 12). After this statement, Jesus would also continue His dialogue with the Pharisees (see 8.13–14: ‘The Pharisees therefore said unto him … Jesus answered and said unto them …’), who were not among those who skulked away when Jesus declared ‘He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her’ (cf. 8.3, 7–9). The dialogue would end with them taking up stones to cast at Christ (8.59), thus culminating the narrative in a gripping way that highlights a striking difference between the two situations (often termed Johannine irony).¹⁶ They were ready to stone a sinful woman, and now they are ready to stone a sinless Christ.

What conclusion can we draw from this brief summary of the narrative of John chapters 7–8 if one assumes John 7.53–8.11 is original? There is ­nothing incongruent or inconsistent about this passage’s presence in the narrative of John. On the contrary, there is much that is fitting and consistent with its inclusion in the narrative.

How would the exclusion of the PA from its traditional location at John 7.53–8.11 affect the narrative flow? At least two significant problems arise within the narrative if the PA is removed. First, the setting for John 7.45–52 is the dialogue between the Pharisees and Nicodemus. If the narrative jumped from 7.52 to 8.12 we would then have Jesus seemingly appearing out of ­nowhere to address the Pharisees. Second, John David Punch makes the point that if the PA is removed, then a new ‘day’ in the narrative would begin in John 7.37 and extend to at least the end of John 8 (v. 59) and perhaps even beyond. So, if the PA is removed, Punch says, this would become ‘the longest single day and discourse recorded in the New Testament, certainly in the Gospel of John.’¹⁷

Second: Does the PA fit with the language, vocabulary, and style of John?

Under this heading we can address two key questions.

1. Is the language in the PA inconsistent with the rest of John, because it makes use of terms more indicative of the ‘Synoptic’ Gospels than of typical Johannine usage?

This question is sometimes raised as an objection against the authenticity of the PA. It focuses especially on the references in the PA to ‘the mount of Olives’ (8.1) and to ‘the scribes’ (8.3). These are indeed the only places in John’s Gospel where there is a reference either to the Mount of Olives or to the scribes, and there are comparatively more references to both in the so-called ‘Synoptic’ Gospels (a term scholars use to refer to Matthew, Mark, and Luke collectively, since they ‘see’ the life of Jesus through a similar lens and in a way somewhat distinct from John).

There are at least two possible responses to this objection.

First, the limited use of ‘Synoptic terms’ in John is, in fact, typical of John. John knows the other Gospels, but his Gospel is also unique in the language it employs. Nevertheless, he will sometimes make brief and rather isolated references in his narrative to terms used much more widely in the other Gospels. Here are two examples of John’s typically limited use of terms found more frequently in the other canonical Gospels:

Example one: John never provides a list of ‘the twelve’ (δώδεκα, dōdeka) as in the other Gospels (cf. Matt 10.1–5; Mark 3.13–19; Luke 6.13–16; cf. Acts 1.13); nevertheless, he makes limited reference to the term ‘the twelve’ in his Gospel (see John 6.67, 70–71).

Example two: John never explicitly describes the apostles James and John as the ‘sons of Zebedee’ in the way in which they are introduced in Matthew and Mark (see Matthew 4.21; 10.2; 20.20; 26.37; 27.56; Mark 1.19–20; 3.17; 10.35), but there is one single reference to them in John 21.2 as ‘the sons of Zebedee’.18

Second, this objection is based on skepticism towards the traditional view of the apostolic authorship of John’s Gospel. The foundational questions to ask are these: Did John the apostle write the Gospel according to John? Would the apostle John have known about the place called the Mount of Olives? Would he have known about Jewish scribes? If one assumes that John the apostle is the author of John’s Gospel (including the PA), how can anyone possibly suggest the use of the terms ‘Mount of Olives’ or ‘scribes’ are evidence of non-Johannine authorship?

2. Is the language and style of the PA Johannine?

We can now proceed positively to suggest that the language and style found in the PA does, in fact, give evidence at many points to be perfectly consistent with that found in the parts of John whose authenticity is undisputed. Here is a list, though not exhaustive, of seven examples which demonstrate the PA’s compatibility with the overall context of John and, therefore, its authenticity:

Example one: The use of the adverb πάλιν (palin) meaning ‘again’ (8.2, 8).

This adverb, appearing twice in the PA (8.2, 8), occurs 47 times across fifteen different chapters in the Gospel of John. In the immediate context, it is also used in 8.12, 21. This word occurs in John more than in any other New Testament book. It is also found in 1 John (2.8) and in Revelation (10.8, 11), indicating it is known within the larger ‘Johannine corpus.’ By way of contrast, it appears only twice in the Gospel according to Luke (13.20; 23.20).

Example two: The prepositional phrase ‘into the temple’ and the verb ‘he
taught’ (8.2):

Consider the use of the prepositional phrase ‘into the temple [εἰς τὸ ἱερόν]’ and the third person singular, imperfect active indicative verb ‘he taught [­ἐδίδασκεν]’ in John 8.2 (bold added):

John 8.2: And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

Ἰωάν. 8.2: ὄρθρου δὲ πάλιν παρεγένετο εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἤρχετο  πρὸς αὐτόν· καὶ καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς.

Now notice that both these expressions appear in the same form in the immediately preceding context in John 7.14 (bold and underline added):

John 7.14: Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught.

Ἰωάν. 7.14: Ἤδη δὲ τῆς ἑορτῆς μεσούσης, ἀνέβη ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, καὶ  ἐδίδασκεv .

No one contends that John 7.14 is foreign to John.

Example three: Jesus is referred to as ‘Master’ [teacher] Διδάσκαλε (didaskale), in the vocative form, from the noun ­διδασκαλος (didaskalos) (8.4).

The noun didaskalos appears seven other times in John (cf. John 1.38; 3.2, 10; 11.28; 13.13–14; and 20.16). Six of those seven are direct references to Jesus (excluding 3.10 where the reference is to Nicodemus: ‘Art thou a master of Israel …?’).

Example four: Reference is made to the Lord Jesus writing ‘on the ground’ εἰς τὴν γῆν (eis tēn gēn) (8.6, 8).

The same or a similar phrase appears in John 3.22;¹⁹ 12.24; 21.9 and Luke 12.49; 24.5. It occurs only once, however, in Matthew (14.34),²⁰ and Mark (4.8). This prepositional phrase is not inconsistent with Johannine usage.²¹

Example five: Reference is made to the accusers ‘being convicted’ ἐλεγχόμενοι (elegchomenoi), a participle from the verb ελεγχω (elegchō), meaning to condemn or convict (8.9).

This verb appears three other times in John (cf. John 3.20; 8.46; 16.8). It does not appear in Mark, and it occurs only once each in Matthew (18.15) and Luke (3.19).

Example six: The adulteress is referred to by the feminine singular noun ‘the woman’ ἡ γυνὴ (hē gynē) (8.9, 10).

This noun with the definite article is used frequently in John and especially in the narrative of Jesus’s interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well in John 4 (another woman, like the adulteress, of questionable reputation). Seven times in John 4 she is referred to as η γυνη (John 4.9, 11, 15, 17, 19, 25, 28).

What is more, the Samaritan woman refers to Jesus as ‘Lord’ Κύριε (kyrie) three times in John 4 (cf. John 4.11, 15, 19), just as the adulteress calls Him by the same term in John 8.11.

Example seven: Christ commands the adulteress, ‘sin no more’ (8.11).

This is the striking final statement in the PA (bold added):

John 8.11: Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Ἰωάν. 8.11: ἡ δὲ εἶπεν, Οὐδείς, Κύριε. εἶπε δὲ αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς , Οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρίνω· πορεύου καὶ μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε.

We can compare this statement to John 5 and its account of the Lord Jesus healing the lame man at the pool of Bethesda. When Jesus later finds this man in the temple, He says to him before He departs (bold added):

John 5.14b: Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

Ἰωάν. 5.14b: καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, Ἴδε ὑγιὴς γέγονας· μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε, ἵνα μὴ χεῖρόν τί σοι γένηται.

The same exact phrase μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε (mēketi hamartane) ‘sin no more’ is used in John 5.14 and in John 8.11.

Conclusion on the internal evidence

The PA fits perfectly within the narrative framework of John. Its vocabulary and style are consistent with what is found in rest of John’s Gospel. It is authentically Johannine.

Patristic Evidence

We turn next to the Patristic evidence, not only to demonstrate that the PA was known and used among early church leaders but also to suggest a plausible reason as to why it might have been missing in some early manuscripts.

A distinction is usually made in the discussion of this passage between the Eastern and Western churches. In the first edition of his Textual Commentary, Bruce M. Metzger claimed that ‘no Greek Father’ prior to the twelfth century ‘comments on this passage’.22 This claim, however, is misleading. Though there are fewer references to the PA in the Eastern tradition, evidence does exist that this incident was well known among Greek-speaking Christians. In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius of Caesarea cites Papias of Hierapolis’s second century discussion of ‘a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins’.23 An intriguing reference to a forgiven adulteress also appears in the third century Syriac work Didascalia apostolorum. This treatise offers two examples of forgiveness for those who repent. The first is King Manasseh from the Old Testament, and the second is a sinful woman. The writer explains:

But if you do not receive him who repents, because you are without mercy, you shall sin against the Lord God. For you do not obey our Savior and our God, and do even as He did with her who had sinned, whom the elders placed before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands, and departed. But He, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her: ‘Have the elders condemned you, my daughter?’ She said to him, ‘Nay Lord.’ And he said unto her: ‘Go, neither do I condemn you.’ In this then let our Savior and King and God, be you a standard, O bishops and imitate Him.²⁴

Didymus the Blind also describes the account in the fourth century in his Commentary on Ecclesiastes (223.7–13), writing:

A woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews on account of a sin and was being taken to the place to be stoned, where that was customary to happen. The Saviour, it says, when He saw her and beholding that they were ready to stone her, said to those about to throw stones at her, ‘Whoever has not sinned, let him take up a stone and cast it. If someone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, taking a stone, let him hit her.’ And no one dared. Since they knew in themselves and perceived that they were also liable for some things, they did not dare to strike her.²⁵

Evidence clearly exists that the account of the woman taken in adultery was well known in the East from the earliest days of Christianity. References to the PA are even more plentiful and direct among the Western Church Fathers. Explicit mentions are also found among Western writers to deliberate attempts to suppress and remove the PA from the Gospel according to John. Punch notes that Ambrose of Milan (c. 339–397), for example, quotes the passage at least nine times in his various writings.²⁶ He adds that Ambrose’s most significant discussion of the PA came in two letters (Epistulae 50 and 68), in which the respected bishop of Milan,

… defends the authenticity of the passage, even explaining the reason for its omission from certain manuscripts. The reason for omission proposed by Ambrose: the teaching could be mistakenly interpreted as being too lenient for the sin of adultery, possibly even making Jesus appear to make a mistake …²⁷

Augustine of Hippo (354–430), converted under the preaching of Ambrose, made at least ten references to the PA and offered extensive exegesis and commentary upon it.²⁸ Writing c. AD 400 in his treatise De adulterinus conjugas ‘On Adulterous Marriages’ (ii.7), Augustine explained how the PA was being removed in his day by some who were offended by Christ’s extension of grace to the adulteress:

Certain persons of little faith or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who had said, ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.²⁹

Aside from concern about personal ethics (reflected by both Ambrose and Augustine) the passage might also have been controversial in the midst of what was known as the Novatian controversy, a schism which began in the early third century. This controversy involved the question of whether or not Christians who had lapsed during times of persecution should be forgiven and restored to the church. In fact, those who had lapsed from the faith were sometimes metaphorically referred to as ‘adulterers’.³⁰ A Spanish Church Father, Pacian (c. 310–391), writing in the late fourth century, protested the severity of the rigid Novationists by appealing to the PA and asking, ‘Are you not willing to read in the Gospel that the Lord also spared the adulteress who confessed, whom no man had condemned’ (Epistula ad Sympronianum, 3.20.1).³¹ Perhaps some rigorists wanted to suppress this passage, precisely because it shows Christ forgiving the adulteress.

Before leaving this discussion, we might also call attention to another possible ecclesiastical explanation as to why the PA is absent in some Greek manuscripts and ancient translations. This explanation involves the fact that the PA was regularly omitted in many early Lectionaries (liturgical documents which included compilations of Biblical texts to be read in worship services throughout the year). F. H. A. Scrivener observed,

In the Lectionaries … this section was never read as a part of the lesson for Pentecost (John vii.37—viii.12), but was reserved for the festivals of such saints as Theodora Sept. 18, or Pelagia Oct. 8 … and in many Service-books, whose Menology was not very full, it would thus be omitted altogether.³²

The PA’s omission from these Lectionaries might have influenced its omission in some Greek copies of the New Testament and in some ancient translations.

Refuting Two ‘Wrong-Headed’ Suggestions

In this fourth point, we want briefly to refute two ‘wrong-headed’ suggestions sometimes put forward regarding John 7.53–8.11.

1. It is often suggested that the PA is a ‘floating tradition’, sometimes dropped into its place after John 7.52, but at other times inserted in other places in John or even in Luke.³³

The ESV translation, for example, offers a misleading footnote on the passage, which states, ‘Some manuscripts do not include 7.53–8.11; others add the passage here or after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with variations in the text’. The thing one should understand, however, is that there are actually very few examples of manuscripts which contain the PA being anywhere other than its traditional location at 7.53–8.11. What is more, the handful of manuscripts that displace the PA are all late in date. Bruce M. Metzger, for example, cites only one late manuscript, minuscule 225 (dated to the early twelfth century), in which the PA occurs after John 7.36.³⁴ These dislocations likely resulted from the efforts, previously discussed above, to suppress the passage.

This question of the PA’s original location in John was examined by Chris Keith in his 2009 article ‘The Initial Location of the Pericope Adulterae in Fourfold Tradition’.³⁵ Keith concluded, ‘There is no extant evidence that PA was read in a canonical gospel text in any location other than John 7.53–8.11 until the late ninth/tenth century CE’. The woman taken in adultery was not, therefore, a ‘floating tradition’ in early Christianity.

1. It is sometimes suggested by modern critics that though the PA is not original and inspired, it is nonetheless a supposedly ‘true’ story about Jesus.

In 2014 I did two podcasts reviewing a sermon by popular Calvinistic scholar-pastor John Piper on the PA.³⁶ In that sermon Piper embraced the now standard view of modern textual critics that the PA is not inspired or original to John. He even suggested it was a ‘floating tradition’, later inserted into the text and that its language and vocabulary are completely inconsistent with the rest of John (views refuted above).

Anticipating potential concerns, Piper then consoled his audience by telling them that though the PA was not original or inspired it was most likely a ‘true’ story. This perspective is rather common among modern evangelicals. A footnote in the ESV Study Bible on John 7.53–8.11 explains, ‘It seems best to view the story as something that happened during Jesus’ ministry but that was not originally part of what John wrote in his Gospel.’³⁷

Piper then expounded on this point, adding (very passionately) ‘It’s true. It’s a true story … whether it happened or whether it belongs in this Gospel.’ Unfortunately, such a statement sounds more like something that might have been articulated by Rudolph Bultmann rather than by an evangelical pastor. Could there really have been a spurious ‘true story’ about Jesus that was then falsely included in the text of John? Can I be so bold as to suggest that the only true stories about Jesus that we are to accept as authentic are those which were written down by Divine inspiration and preserved in the Scriptures? Is it not the cults who claim they have access to supposedly true stories about Jesus that are not in the canonical Scriptures, whether they be Gnostics promoting the Gospel of Thomas or Latter Day Saints promoting the Book of Mormon? This view is dangerous and should be rejected by orthodox Christians.

Conclusion

What have we discovered in this study? Here are some conclusions:

1. The authenticity of the PA is affirmed by the external evidence. It is the reading found in the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts, including some of the oldest.
2. The authenticity of the PA is affirmed by the internal evidence. It is consistent with the narrative framework, language, and style of John.
3. The PA was a controversial passage among early Christians, and this controversy led some to attempt to suppress it. This controversy, however, was eventually overcome by a sound and clear consensus of believers throughout the world, as they affirmed that in this passage they heard the authentic voice of their Shepherd.
4. The PA is neither a ‘floating tradition’ nor a non-canonical ‘true story’. Its original location in John was at John 7.53–8.11, and it is a true story because John the evangelist was moved by the Holy Spirit to record it.

In his commentary on John, A. W. Pink noted, ‘Personally we have not the slightest doubt but that it [the PA] forms a part of the inspired Word of God …’³⁸ He then concluded:

The one who is led and taught by the Spirit of God need not waste valuable time examining ancient manuscripts for the purpose of discovering whether or not this portion of the Bible is really part of God’s Word.³⁹

To reject the PA would to be rob Holy Scripture of one of its most precious and useful accounts of our Lord’s incarnational ministry. It would be to rob the church of one of its great resources. How many times over the millennia have Christian pastors drawn upon this passage from the pulpit in preaching and in their studies while doing personal work in counselling? They have used it to comfort sinners with the good news of the unfathomable forgiveness of sin found in Christ—Christ forgives the worst sins committed by the worst sinners. They have also used it to exhort the forgiven sinner to pursue with all his being a life of holiness, flowing from a heart of gratitude—Go and sin no more. We in this generation must stand and defend this text as those in the generations before us have done.

---

Glossary

Apparatus. Notes in a modern printed edition of a Greek text that list different readings and the manuscripts that support them.

Codex. A hand-copied manuscript produced in a book format as opposed to a scroll.

Codices. Plural of codex.

Latin Vulgate. A Latin translation of the Bible closely associated with Jerome (c. 342–420).

Lectionary. A book consisting of selections of Scripture for reading in connection with the church calendar.

Majuscule. See Uncial.

Majority Text. A text based on the majority of extant manuscript witnesses. Although close to the Received Text, there are a number of differences, and some of these are significant (e.g. Acts 8.37; 1 John 5.7–8). Furthermore, as no detailed collation of all surviving manuscripts has taken place, the exact majority text cannot yet be determined; and even if one day that became possible, the resultant text could only be provisional and tentative, because the discovery of further manuscripts might change minority readings to majority readings, or vice versa. The doctrine of providential preservation, however, teaches that the Church is—and always has been—in possession of the true text of Scripture.

Manuscript. A handwritten copy of the text originally written on papyrus or vellum.

Miniscule. also known as Cursive. A manuscript written in small, joined handwriting.

Modern Critical Text. A Greek text of the New Testament that uses textual criticism to reconstruct what the editors think might have been the earliest text. These texts are often constructed without adequate regard to the historical place given to manuscripts and particular readings within the Church of God, and relying on a few old, but nevertheless unrepresentative, manuscripts and readings which have lain in obscurity for many centuries. Critical texts are such as the Westcott/Hort or Nestle/Aland texts, both of which rely heavily upon Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph or 01; 4th cent.), and Codex Vaticanus (B or 03; 4th century).

Papyrus (plural, Papyri). Writing-material made from papyrus plants on which some of the earliest Greek New Testament witnesses were copied. These were prone to decay and therefore much of the papyri have only been found in the drier climate of Egypt.

Patristic. Relating to the early Christian theologians, also known as the Church Fathers.

Scribal markings. Notes or marking for readers by the scribe copying the text that are not part of the text itself.

Textus Receptus or Received Text. The standard printed editions of the text of the Greek New Testament, published during the Reformation and Post-Reformation eras which became the basis for the great Protestant translations of the Bible. This text was based on what were considered to be the most faithful copies (apographs) of the New Testament, affirmed by Protestant scholars as accurately conveying the Divine originals (autographs), and generally received by churches up to the present, but challenged beginning in the modern era.

Uncial. A hand written manuscript composed in capital letters and in which each letter is written separately.

Variant. A different reading from other manuscripts due to spelling, word order, omission, addition, substitution or different wording.

Witnesses. Greek manuscripts, ancient translations (often called ‘versions’), or quotations in ancient authors such as early Church Fathers that bear testimony to a particular reading.